Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. It is further submitted that it is extremely shocking that both the APARS have arbitrarily recorded a below bench-mark grade of 4.83 out of 10 (2 + 1.53 + 1.3 = 4.83) by both the reporting and reviewing officer wherein the benchmark grade is considered as 6 out of 10. The reporting and reviewing officer arbitrarily recorded the below benchmark grade in the impugned APARS without assigning any reason, without narrating a single instance or mentioning any adverse remarks against the work done by the applicant and therefore it can be safely presumed that the applicant was graded by his superiors without any application of mind.Furthermore, in both the impugned APARs the individual grade given to assess the applicant's functional competency having a weightage f * 0.3% should have been recorded as 1.46 ( 34/7 * 0.3 = 1.46) and not as 1.3 and the total should therefore add up to 4.99 instead of 4.83.

11. In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the only APAR more particularly the impugned APARS for the relevant period from 20th May, 2016 to 31st) December, 2016 and from 01st January, 2017 to 31st March, 2017 wherein the applicant worked as General Manager in Fárakka Barrage Project and received a below bench-mark grade unfortunately still remained on the applicant's APAR dossier.

12. Thereafter, the applicant submitted the self- appraisal portion/Part II of the APAR for the period from - 1st April, 2017 to 31 March 2018 wherein he worked as Chief Engineer in the Teesta Basin Organisation of Respondent No.3 organization to the Reporting Officer within the prescribed time schedule.The applicant was communicated the APAR for the aforesaid period wherein he worked as, Chief Engineer in Teesta Basin Organisation within the due date by both the reporting and reviewing officer. The applicant once again received an overall grade of 8 out of 10 which is considered as "outstanding" from both the reporting officer i.e. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, the then Member (RM) of respondent no. 3 and the reviewing officer i.e. Mr. S. Masood Husain, the then Chairman of Respondent No.3. At this juncture, it is stated that the applicant has consistently received a numerical grade of 8 or 7 out 10 in the previous APARS from 2014 onwards except for the relevant period from 20.05.2016 to 31.12.2016 and from 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2017 wherein he worked as General Manager in Farakka Barrage Project and received a below benchmark grade as enumerated below:

"The Competent Authority after careful consideration of these representations and other relevant documents has decided that there is no sufficient ground for interference with the grade already recorded in his aforesaid two APARs. The aforesaid two representations dated 29.01.2018 submitted by Shri Amrendra Kumar Singh, former General Manager, Farakka Barrage Project hereby stand rejected and accordingly the same is disposed of."

14. The applicant submits that on 10.01.2020 the Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) issued an Office Memorandum bearing OM No. AB- 14017/30/2011-Estt. (RR) for "Non- Functional upgradation for officers of Organized Group 'A' Services in PB-3, PB-4 and HAG". In this case, the applicant being a 1988 batch Central Water Engineering Service (CWES) Group 'A' officer is eligible to be considered for the aforesaid non-functional upgradation in HAG grade and he is aggrieved due to the mechanical rejection of his representations dated 29.01.2018 after a gross and unexplained delay of 2 years regarding reconsideration of below benchmark grading in the impugned APARs and arbitrary, adverse remarks therein.

15. The OA also mentions that the applicant will be superannuating from service on 31st January, 2022. The applicant is apprehensive in not being considered for non- functional upgradation due to the adverse remarks and below benchmark grade in the impugned APARS which will consequently affect his pay-scale, pension and other benefits once the applicant is superannuated.

16. The respondents in their counter reply have submitted that the applicant was holding the post of Chief Engineer in Central Water Commission and was working as Superintending Engineer, Farakka Barrage Project (FBP) from 09.06.2014 to 23.10.2016 and he was assigned the Additional charge of the post of General Manager, Farakka Barrage Project (FBP) from 20.05.2016 to 01.11.2017, He wrote his self-appraisal APARs for the period 20.05.2016 to 31.12.2016 and 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2017 on 18.01.2017 and 05.05.2017 respectively and subsequently submitted his APARs to reporting officer. His APARs for both these periods were reported and reviewed upon by the both reporting officer (OSD/Secretary of the Department) & Reviewing officer (Minister-in-charge) on 10.11.2017. He has been given a grading 4.83 by both the reporting & reviewing officers in both the APARS for the periods 20.05.2016 to 31.12.2016 and 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2017. Both these APARS for the aforementioned periods were communicated to the applicant for submitting any representation, if any, in consonance with the provision so the DoPT's O.M dated 14.05.2009, Aggrieved by the below benchmark grading given to him for both these APARs and also the delay in timeline for reporting & reviewing the APARs, applicant submitted two representations dated 29.01.2018 for upgradation of the below bench mark grading in these 2 APARs. These 2 representations submitted for consideration of the incumbent Minister-in-charge. However, doubt had arisen as to how the incumbent in the office of Hon'ble Minister will judge the performance of the applicant as the applicant had not worked during the incumbency of the present Hon'ble Minister. As such, the comments of Department of Personnel & Training, being the Nodal Department for issuing instructions related to preparation & maintenance of ACR/APAR, were sought in March, 2018 itself. However, Clarification/comments from DoPT were received in October, 2018. It was clarified by the DoPT that "the present incumbent in the office of Hon'ble Minister (WR, RD & GR) may consider both the representations in consultation with the then Reporting/Reviewing Authority viz, Dr. Amarjit Singh, Secretary (WR, RD & GR) (Retired) and Sushri Uma Bharati, the then Hon'ble Minister (WR, RD & GR)".Subsequently, the comments of the then reporting & reviewing officers were sought in consonance with the advice of DoPT. Since both these officers had demitted office, lot of difficulty was faced in obtaining their comments. Finally, the comments of the Reporting Officer were received in April, 2019 and the comments of the then Reviewing officer had been received in December, 2018. Subsequently, the representations dated 29.01.2018 of the applicant were considered objectively by the competent authority (incumbent Minister-in- charge), keeping in view the comments of the then reporting & reviewing officers and the competent authority after careful consideration of these representations and other relevant documents found no sufficient ground for interference with the grade already recorded in the impugned APARs. As such, applicant's representations were rejected vide Order No.A- 19012/1/2018-E.III dated 03.01.2020 (Annxeure-R4) resulting the present Ο.Α.